Results 641 - 657 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
641 | When I say the creed this bothers me. | 1 Pet 4:6 | stjones | 66484 | ||
Some say that Peter is referring to Jesus during the three days between crucifixion and resurrection. Here is the view of an official of my denomination (Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk): 'Not always understood, and even rejected by some steadfast Christians, is the phrase "descended into hell." This phrase states the conviction that Jesus, being fully human, truly died after His crucifixion and entered into the death of all other persons. "Hell" here is not understood as the location of evil persons, but as the place of the dead. An early view was that Christ liberated those who had died, while others also believed that He conquered the realm of Satan, a victory over death and evil.' [The Presbyterian Layman Volume 34, Number 4, Posted May 30, 2001] HTH Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
642 | When I say the creed this bothers me. | 1 Pet 4:6 | stjones | 66519 | ||
Glad to help. Our church sort of alternates between the Apostles' Creed and the Corinthian Creed. I like 'em both. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
643 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 81360 | ||
Hi, Ed; Since the Bible does not mention "dispensations", I assume you consider dispensationalism heretical as well. There are pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, and a-millenialists, all of them believing that they took the whole Word and rightly divided it. It seems that at least two groups must be heretical; maybe they all are. God did not give us a theological treatise. He gave us a story. Most doctrines (and most discussions on this forum) result from finite humans trying to understand the infinite mind behind the story. This isn't just an intellectual exercise. The Bible does not tell us how to behave in every situation. One of the reasons the Pharisees got into trouble was that instead of developing a theology - an organized set of principles that might guide people - they came up with rules. One problem with this approach is that every new situation requires a new rule. Grace makes it even harder - how am I to understand and apply the law of the new covenant that God has placed in my mind and written on my heart? (Jeremiah 31:33) Theology and doctrine simply try to organize the events and words of God's story into consistent principles. Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Knox, Wesley, all simply tried to find a way to organize the truth revealed in the Bible - organize it, not alter it. Calvin's TULIP doctrine is distasteful to many people but it is derived only from the Bible, not from any other source, and not from Calvin's imagination. Jesus told me to love my neighbor. That doesn't help me to choose between sacrificial love and tough love in a specific circumstance - Jesus exhibited both at various times. It's fine to disparage doctrine, but every time you offer a panhandler a meal instead of the dollar he asked for, you are applying doctrine of your own or someone else's making. If you tithe 10 percent because you believe that God commands it, you are applying doctrine. If you celebrate Easter or Christmas or sing a Fanny Crosby hymn in church, you are applying doctrine. With TULIP, Calvin did not change the gospel; he harmonized it with the rest of the Bible. I doubt he got it right, but it's not heresy. Much of what I see on Christian TV today comes a lot closer to heresy than Calvin did. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who got most of his doctrine from C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" |
||||||
644 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 81406 | ||
Hi, Ed; Sorry; probably shouldn't have jumped in the middle since I agree that any label beyond "Christian" should be superfluous. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who identify themselves as "Christians", naming themselves after a Christ not found in the Bible. I find myself having to identify myself as an "evangelical Christian" to distinguish myself from the Modernists who mold God and Jesus into their own likenesses. My point was just that doctrine is not necessarily a bad thing for the reasons I gave. Given that, I don't think denominations are necessarily a bad thing either. Disunity in the Body of Christ arises when people think their doctrine is the only doctrine or when they think their denomination is the Body. Of course, disunity also arises when evangelicals and modernists find themselves in the same denomination (mine, for example) discussing doctrine. But that can happen in a local house church too, so it's no condemnation of denominations. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who is a Presbyterian but not necessarily a Calvinist |
||||||
645 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 81782 | ||
Hi, Ed; I sometimes wonder if the unity that Christ referred to extends to unity of church organizations. God has been pretty consistent in organizing humans internally, not externally. The nation of Israel existed before and after there was a geopolitical entity by that name. Likewise the Kingdom of God is not now a physical entity. I don't think the body of Christ is an external organization either. Our identity as members of that body is internal. Every church has wolves in sheeps' clothing who on the outside appear to be members of the body but internally are not. I don't think God has a problem with denominations; I think God has a problem with denominations fighting among themselves. I think God has a problem with denominations that teach doctrines that contradict his Word, not with denominations that see differences in understanding what the Word says. I agree that it is wrong for denomination or doctrines to contradict the Word. But if there were just one possible way to understand the Bible, this forum wouldn't exist - or it would be very boring. Indeed, your assertion that "we believe in the literal acceptance of the Bible or not" is a statement of doctrine, one with which I disagree. I think we vary in the extent to which we interpret the Bible literally. Of course, you and I have disagreed on this in the past, so I don't suppose that we'll agree now. But here's something I know we agree on: the tomb is empty! As we'll sing in worship later this morning, "Christ the Lord is risen today. Allelujah!" Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
646 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 82524 | ||
Hi, Ed; You raise some good questions. I have to wonder if Peter and Paul had disagreements with the wisdom and authority they posessed, how could we, 2000 years later, not? I agree with you about the labels. I'm an elder in a Presbyterian church, so I guess that makes me a Calvinist. But I'm just a teensy bit Arminian. Call me a Calvinist, call me an Arminian, as long as Jesus calls me his, I don't mind. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
647 | Forgiven for spending to much? | 1 John | stjones | 27948 | ||
Hi, top; I'm glad you're saved! There is no question you have been forgiven. At the risk of sounding judgmental or presumptuous, I would urge you to consider what God's will might be when it comes to repaying debts. You must decide whether a promise cancelled or reduced by a bankruptcy court is altered in God's eyes. If God expects you to pay your debts in full, failure to do so will just be an ongoing burden of sin in your new life. But you may be sure that he will make it possible - if not comfortable - for you to manage it. You might visit www.crown.org for a Biblical view of money matters. I wish you well. Peace and grace and a blessed and merry Christmas Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
648 | God is Light! | 1 John 1:5 | stjones | 23946 | ||
Hi, Nolan; A couple of observations about light and dark - In English "light" is both the radiant energy and its source - e.g. a lamp or lantern. God is both the source and the energy itself. Darkness is without power - in fact it's without its own definition; darkness is just the absence of light. Because darkness has no power of its own, it succumbs to the light every time. No matter how deep or dark the abyss may be, a single candle wins - "Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness". Likewise God's light defeats spiritual darkness every time. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
649 | God is Light! | 1 John 1:5 | stjones | 23964 | ||
I appreciate the kind words, Nolan, but I must confess.... I think I mentioned in another thread that I was invited to preach on 1 John 1:5-2:6 a couple of months ago and had a long time to prepare. Those comments came from that sermon and all credit goes to the Holy Spirit who guided my preparation. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
650 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | stjones | 100633 | ||
Hi, George; It is surprising to find one who has such a low regard for apologetics practicing it: "Did you ever hear the saying that 'the one who defends himself has a fool for a client?'". That's not in the Bible, is it? Yet you quoted it in defense of the Bible. That's apologetics. But you're in good company; Paul was quite an apologist himself. In the Areopagus, he used the beliefs and artifacts of the culture he was in to show the truth of Scripture. (Acts 2:16-34) Ravi Zacharias, Josh McDowell, and C. S. Lewis have done exactly the same thing. It's hardly "garbage". Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones (whose pathway to acceptance of the Gospel was cleared by C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity") |
||||||
651 | How to love others as commanded | 1 John 3:11 | stjones | 108875 | ||
Hi, Kichmon; Couple of questions: (1) Are you a person "who is aware of [your] own divinity? (2) Mary's been dead for 2,000 years (well, maybe 1,950), how can she be with anybody? Ok, three questions. (3) What good would Mary do if she were with somebody? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
652 | How to love others as commanded | 1 John 3:11 | stjones | 108906 | ||
Hi, Kichmon; Sorry, I should have stated that I was looking for some kind of Biblical basis for your ideas. Given the nature of this forum, I would have thought that was obvious. But I confess, I knew no Bibical validation would be forthcoming anyway. I guess that makes us both trolls of sorts, but only one of us guilty of false teaching. Perhaps you can clear the New Age clutter from your mind and see what the Bible says. On the other hand, if you don't consider the Bible reliable and authoritative, then at least have the decency to free the bandwidth for people who do. -Indy |
||||||
653 | What does baptism consist? | 1 John 5:6 | stjones | 113692 | ||
Hi, Rowdy; Just as a point of reference, the American Heritage dictionary online gives the following etymology of "baptize": "Middle English baptizen, from Old French baptiser, from Late Latin baptzre, from Greek baptizein, from baptein, to dip." My Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1934, paper) gives a lengthier but similar history. At any rate, I don't know if King James was tempted by the Devil or not (I suppose he was; we all are). But I doubt he ordered anybody to invent a new pidgin-Greek word since the English word (and its nearly identical French predecessor) already existed well before the issuance of the original King James in 1611. It appears the "historical documents" are wrong about this, so I wonder if they may not be wrong about other aspects of this story as well. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
654 | what about the K J V | Rev 3:10 | stjones | 24960 | ||
Hi, Waldo; As I'm sure you know, that's not a practical solution for most people. For scholarly purposes (and by scholarship, I refer primarily to publication), yes, that is the preferred way. But the kinds of technical questions that entertain scholars these days don't have much bearing on the lives of believers. I don't think God expects most of us to do that either. The Holy Spirit guides our understanding. It certainly may be true that the more material we give him to work with (translations, paraphrases, original languages, trustworthy commentaries, other believers, even this forum), the more mature or discerning we may become. I think people who use lexicons as a substitute for learning the ancient languages can be led astray. Nearly every word in a lexicon has multiple meanings or shades of meaning. How does one pick the appropriate meaning for a word without knowing the original context in which it was used? This is not a condemnation of lexicons (which I use myself on occation) or of those who refer to them in this forum, just an observation. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
655 | The First created Being? | Rev 3:14 | stjones | 104607 | ||
Hi, Leox; No, Jesus was not created by God. As the Amplified passage shows, Jesus was referring to himself as the one who originated creation (see John 1:3). He preceded creation (John 1:1-2); he was not a part of it. Jesus was begotten of God - God's son. God didn't create his son any more than I created my children. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
656 | The First created Being? | Rev 3:14 | stjones | 104904 | ||
Hi, Leo; "God is not the author of confusion... but boy oh boy man sure is." You got that right. - Indy |
||||||
657 | Have you seen His grace in your life? | Rev 22:21 | stjones | 28694 | ||
Hi, Search; I have seen his grace in my life abundantly since I was saved in 1989. But I'd just as soon he wait until all those I care about are either saved or dead. And I'm REAL glad he didn't return before 1989. Selfish of me, I suppose, but there it is. Perhaps every generation's feeling this way delays his return; I don't know. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ] |